Summary: Mr X, a care leaver, complains the Council failed to provide him with proper support and made mistakes with his financial support that resulted in arrears. He says this made it impossible for him to relocate from an undesirable location and ultimately contributed to him being made homeless. He also complains about the Council’s delay in investigating his complaint and its eventual decision not to investigate his complaint at stage three. He says this caused him distress. The Council has accepted partial fault for some of Mr X’s complaint. It has suggested a remedy. The Ombudsman finds further fault and has made further recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr X, who complains through his representative, Mr Y says that the Council:
1. Made an error with his university grant payment in October 2017, which forced Mr X to remain in his accommodation because of rent arrears. He says this led to him facing eviction and homelessness. He also says this prevented him from moving to another property;
2. failed to consult with him when in May 2018 it decided to pay £1500 of his university grant (“the grant”) towards reducing his rent arrears;
3. should not have decided his grant should be paid towards his rent arrears;
4. failed to respond to his complaint in good time; and
5. despite assurances that it would pay him £300 of his university grant, failed to do so for seven months.
2. While the Council upheld a number of Mr X’s complaints, he considered that, in summary, it failed to:
1. Take full account of the failings identified;
2. to draw the right conclusions;
3. provide him with adequate compensation for the fault found; and
4. failed to progress his complaint through the correct process with no valid explanation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
6. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.
7. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
8. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I reviewed the complaint file from Mr X, which has been prepared with the help of his representative, Mr Y.
10. I made enquiries with the Council and researched the relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Both the complainant and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on my draft decisions. I have made amendments to take account of their observations and new information.
12. As I will comment on below, I consider the Council should have reviewed Mr X’s complaint at stage three of its complaints process. I consider it was wrong of the Council not to do so.
13. However, Mr X first made his complaint to the Council in March 2018. A significant time period has elapsed and Mr Y has explained the delay in achieving resolution caused him distress. Therefore, I do not consider it would be helpful to recommend that the Council now progress Mr X’s complaint to a stage three review panel.
14. I have decided to address the stage two investigation report and consider whether it has addressed the complaint and the fault found.

Back to top

What I found

The stage two report

15. The stage two investigation report set out much of the relevant law in this case. I have set out key legal guidance I consider helpful in this investigation.

Looked-after children and the Council’s duty to care-leavers

16. Local authorities have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to safeguard and promote the welfare of a child looked after by them. A child who is looked after by a local authority (referred to as a looked-after child means a child (0-18 years of age), who is subject to a care order (or interim care order) or who is accommodated by the local authority. The Council effectively becomes the child’s ‘corporate parent’. (Section 22, Children Act 1989, and Promoting the Educational Achievement of Looked After Children, Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities, July 2014 (“the Guidance”))
17. The Guidance was replaced in February 2018 with new guidance, “Promoting the education of looked-after children and previously looked-after children” but was the relevant guidance for councils to follow until that point.
18. Local authorities are required to appoint an officer, called a personal advisor, to make sure that its duty to promote their educational achievement is properly discharged.
19. The Guidance set out that councils had to ensure that a bursary (which was £2000 in 2012), was paid to each looked after child or care leaver going on into higher education. Arrangement for the payment of the bursary should be agreed by the young person. (85.5, The Guidance)
20. As the local authority acts as a parent to the children it accommodates it is also important that it prepares the child for independence. Councils must carry out an assessment of the care leaver’s needs to determine what advice, assistance and support is appropriate. It must then prepare a pathway plan, (“the plan”). The plan is to be reviewed regularly. (The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, para 19B(5))
21. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 states that its main purpose is to help young people who have been looked after by a local authority move from care into living independently in as stable a fashion as possible.
22. The assessment and pathway planning process for a care leaver must involve a measured evidence-based analysis of the young person’s continuing need for care, accommodation and support, including whether they should continue to remain looked after. Where the care plan for the young person has been maintained and kept up to date, the development of the pathway plan should build on information and services set out in the care plan, incorporating the services that will be provided to the young person to develop their resilience and equip them to make a positive transition to adulthood so that they can manage the challenges of more independent living. (3.8, The Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations Volume 3: planning transition to adulthood for care leavers, 2011, revised in 2015)
23. The plan must include details about how support for the young person will be offered to maintain him or her in further and higher education or other training environment. (85.3, The Guidance)
24. The pathway plan should provide information on how to manage their day to day finances, including how to take up any entitlements to benefits. (3.28, The Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations Volume 3: planning transition to adulthood for care leavers, 2011, revised in 2015)
25. The Council must make sure the pathway plan is reviewed at the prescribed intervals and will also be responsible for convening additional reviews to resolve potential crises faced by the care leavers that they support. For example, where there is a risk that a young person might be evicted from their accommodation, it will be essential that the PA convenes a review involving all relevant professionals, along with the young person, to develop a plan to enable the young person to maintain their accommodation or move in a planned way, therefore preventing them from becoming homeless. (3.33, The Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations Volume 3: planning transition to adulthood for care leavers, 2011, revised in 2015)
26. Where a young person is living in semi-independent accommodation linked to the provision of housing related support, the Council should monitor how well the accommodation, with its related support, is meeting the young person’s needs. They should liaise closely with the young person and their housing support worker to identify and resolve any problems. ( 3.40 The Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations Volume 3: planning transition to adulthood for care leavers, 2011, revised in 2015)
27. In every case where a care leaver requests this support, authorities will need to assess the appropriateness of the education or training course and how it will help them to achieve their ambitions. The leaving care team should meet with the young person and based on the assessment of their needs and the suitability of the course, assign a Personal Adviser to participate in the preparation of a pathway plan. The plan should reflect the agreed educational outcomes for the young person and the type of support the young person will require.
28. Many young people will be experiencing a number of practical and emotional difficulties in their lives as they navigate the complexities of adulthood, which mean that they would be unable to return to education or training immediately.

The complaints addressed by the Council

29. Mr X’s complaint was considered at stage two by an independent investigator. An independent person’s report was also completed, which agreed with the investigator’s conclusions. This was followed by an Adjudicating Officer’s letter, which provided the Council’s response to the investigation. Although the investigator upheld two out of five of the complaint headings and partially upheld two, it is part of Mr X’s complaint that the investigator did not, in his view, fully take account of the failings identified. I will therefore go through each complaint heading to address this complaint. While addressing the way the Council answered Mr X’s complaint, I will also touch on other issues the complainant has raised. I have assessed whether the Council was at fault in those regards.
30. Below is a brief summary of the facts of this case. It does not record everything that happened.
31. Mr X is a care leaver. In September 2017 he requested support from the Council as he said he wished to start a college course. He sought support from the Council. The Council agreed to pay him a £3000 grant in three instalments. He was also to receive payments of a student finance loan. The Council says each instalment was £3706 in total. I have seen evidence a payment of around that sum was made to Mr X at the beginning of November 2017.
32. Mr X says he actually only received £1800 a term from his student grant. He says he signed a contract which meant he could only keep the standard foundation payment and anything else would be paid to an agent for entitlement and registration fees. Mr X says he was told that if he did not make these payments, he would not be able to continue at the college.
33. Mr X said his council-appointed personal advisor was aware of this. He says a copy of the contract he had with his agent was provided to his personal advisor. I have not seen any records to support this claim. Mr X attended a number of meetings where his finances were discussed. No note has been made to indicate that he raised payments to his agent as an issue.
34. Mr X has provided me with newspaper cuttings showing there was some concern about the college he attended at the time. I asked him to provide a crime reference number, a copy of the contract he signed with the college agent or bank statements showing payment to the college. He provided me with bank statements. I am unable to determine from these alone if payments were made to an agent or not.
35. Mr X said he did not report what happened to the police as he was told he would breach the contract with his agent if he did and be suspended from the course. He said he no longer has a copy of the contract with his agent.
36. The Council paid the first instalment of £1000 to an old account of Mr X’s. He could not access the funds as his bank used it to reduce the overdraft on that account. The Council accepted this was a mistake and said it would pay him the same sum again.
37. Thereafter, Mr X’s rent arrears accrued. The Council did not make payment until May 2018, when it used some of the money due and his next grant instalment to pay down his rising rent arrears. Mr X said the Council did not have his agreement to do this.

The Council made an error with Mr X’s university grant payment in October 2017 which:

a) forced him to remain in his current accommodation where he accrued rent arrears and faced possible eviction and homelessness, and

b) prevented him from ending his tenancy with no arrears and moving to a preferred property.

38. The investigating officer partially upheld a) and b).
39. In summary, the officer found that the Council was at fault for failing to make Mr X’s initial grant payment into the right account and when this was discovered, for failing to reissue the payment in good time. This meant Mr X accrued rent arrears.
40. The investigator said this meant that technically, Mr X could not leave his accommodation. The investigator found that Mr X would not have been able to avoid rent arrears in any case. The Council says this is because the investigator did not appreciate that Mr X was in receipt of over £3000 from his student loan.
41. The investigator noted that there were periods of time, especially before the Council failed to make the first payment to Mr X, where he had no money. Mr X’s bank statements support this view. The records indicate he was contacting the Council asking for help, which was not forthcoming. He was told, at one stage, that no payments could be authorised to him until he had provided confirmation that he was on a course.
42. After the investigator’s report, the Council’s Adjudicator noted that Mr X paid £900 of his student finance loan towards his rent in November 2017. The letter appeared to suggest Mr X could have used his remaining student finance to address his arrears.

My analysis

43. It is clear that the Council failed to ‘pathway plan’ for Mr X. This is fault. I have to decide if that caused Mr X the injustice he claims; that he was forced to remain in his current accommodation and prevented from moving to a preferred property.

I do not consider the Council’s fault caused that injustice. Pathway planning is considered necessary to help vulnerable young people manage their affairs. However, I cannot say with sufficient certainty that, if Mr X was given more support at the early stages, things would have been substantially different. The investigator’s report was right to quote the following passage from the Children Act Guidance and Regulations Volume 3:

“Empowering young people may require a PA to allow care leavers the opportunity to take risks and learn and grow, even if this means that they may not initially be successful in what they set out to achieve. This will require considerable professional skill, judgment, engagement and attention to the young person’s development and changing needs…PAs will need to strike a balance between being ‘hands off’ and intervening in support for the young person. PAs must be ready to step in, and be active in making sure that young people are offered the right kind of support to enable them to succeed as they make the transition to adulthood, recognising that in order to succeed, young people may need to experience failure and a learning experience first.”

44. I cannot say with sufficient certainty that pathway planning would have prevented Mr X paying large sums of his student loan out and getting himself into arrears. I therefore cannot say that any injustice Mr X suffered from being in arrears and unable to move from his accommodation, was the fault of the Council.
45. Mr X says he had to pay large sums of his loan money to an agent in connection with his course. He says he is a victim of fraud. This may be so, but I have no evidence that the Council knew about it. There is no evidence that Mr X sought help from the Council. Further, the Council did seek to budget plan with Mr X but he did not engage. I have looked at the records of meetings Mr X had with his personal advisor and there is no record of him mentioning this claim.
46. Nonetheless, I consider the Council’s failure to help Mr X when he had no money and requested help in mid-October 2017, caused him an injustice. He had no pathway plan and was struggling alone with no money. The Council caused him significant injustice.
47. I have recommended the Council make a payment of £200 to acknowledge the distress caused.
48. Mr X’s difficulties were compounded by the difficulties he was having with local gangs. He says he wanted to move and told the Council this on several occasions. However, the records show the Council was sympathetic to his situation and took it seriously. When it offered emergency accommodation, Mr X did not accept it. I accept what Mr X says about his concerns about gang activity elsewhere but the Council was trying to proactively address his situation. It was providing support.
49. Mr X eventually relinquished his tenancy. He says the Council did not warn him of the consequences of doing so or offer him legal advice. However, the records show that the Council warned him about the consequences of surrendering his tenancy. He did not contact the Council again and the tenancy was terminated on 4 November 2018.
50. In summary, I conclude that the Council’s partial uphold of this part of his complaint is fair.

Intentionally homeless

51. In my enquiries to the Council, I asked it to provide copies of any homelessness decisions made about Mr X. It has not done so, which is concerning. It means I am unable to assess what consideration, if any, was given to what Mr X says about the circumstances that led to his arrears and decision to relinquish his tenancy.
52. Given the Council’s failure to pathway plan for Mr X, I have recommended that the Council review its decision to label Mr X ‘intentionally homeless’.

Mr X’s request for a new personal advisor

Although I understand Mr X’s frustration with the Council, the Ombudsman cannot recommend Mr X is provided with a new personal advisor. That is a personnel decision that is for the Council to make. However, I hope the Council will re-consider Mr X’s request in the light of the fault I have found.

The Council failed to consult with Mr X when in May 2018 it decided to pay £1500 of his university grant towards reducing his rent arrears.

53. The Council concluded that Mr X understood that the money the Council incorrectly placed in an old account would be used to help pay his rent arrears, which were £691 at the time. However, the Council took so long paying the money into his account that by the time it did make payment, the arrears had increased significantly. The investigator found there was not enough evidence to show that Mr X fully appreciated that the Council would then use the whole of his first grant payment and half of his second grant payment towards his arrears.
54. The Council partially upheld his complaint.

My analysis

55. The grant was for Mr X to use as he saw fit. The Council failed to obtain any written evidence of his agreement to use his grant money to pay his arrears. The evidence from Mr X’s personal advisor, that he agreed for his grant to be spent in this way, is contradicted by Mr X’s statement that he did not do agree. Mr Y also points out that the Council told Mr X in March 2019 that it was no longer going to pay him a further £1000, but only £300. This appears to contradict the Council’s claim that Mr X agreed for the £1000 grant money to be repaid direct to his rent account. There are some statements in the records which indicate Mr X might have given his consent. But these are contradicted by other statements made and. in any event, the Council had no written authority to use Mr X’s grant money in the way it did.
56. I have no doubt that officers felt they were doing what they could to protect Mr X but I do not find that there is conclusive evidence that the decision to pay the £1500 to Mr X’s rent account was taken with his agreement.
57. But I do not propose to recommend that the Council pay the £1500 back to Mr X. It would be non-sensical to ask the Council to pay Mr X a sum of money that it would then immediately seek from him in payment of rent arrears. I also note that Mr X has already had the benefit of two payments of £1000 rather than one.
58. However, the Council should apologise for failing to secure Mr X’s written agreement before using his grant money to pay his rent arrears. I have recommended the Council do this.

The Council had no right to decide that Mr X’s university grant should be paid towards reducing his rent arrears.

59. The Council did not uphold this part of Mr X’s complaint. It viewed that there was evidence Mr X had agreed to use the grant to reduce the rent arrears.

My analysis

60. I disagree. For the reasons set out above, I find that the Council, without evidence of agreement, used Mr X’s grant money to pay towards his arrears. The Council cannot say on the one hand that it wants to encourage independence in care leavers and then on the other hand, take decisions on behalf of Mr X. I find fault. I do not find it caused Mr X a significant injustice. I do not consider it likely that Mr X would have taken the £1500 and spent it on a deposit and new accommodation. He could have used his student loan money of over £3000 to improve his housing situation but he chose not to.

The Council failed to provide adequate responses to Mr X’s complaint until he received advocacy support in October 2017 and again in May 2018.

61. The Council upheld this part of Mr X’s complaint.
62. The Council found that until Mr X secured the help of advocacy services, it did not respond properly to his enquiries, both about receiving a confirmation letter from the college and about the payment of his grant money into the wrong account.
63. It recommended that the Council apologise for this failing.

My analysis

64. I agree that the Council should apologise for this failing.

Despite agreeing in October 2017 to refund Mr X £300 of his university grant the Council failed to pay this money for seven months.

65. The Council upheld this part of Mr X’s complaint.
66. The Council accept that Mr X understood he would be paid £309, as the remainder of the £1000 payment that was due to be paid towards his rent arrears of £691.

My analysis

67. I agree with the Council’s findings.

The Complaints process

What the Council should have done and what happened

68. The Council has considered this complaint under two of the three stages of the Children Act 1989 Complaints Procedure.
69. The first stage is a response to the complainant from the department concerned. It should have been received within 10 days of complaining. The Council took 33 days. This is fault.
70. The second stage is an investigation and report carried out by someone independent of the department and with independent oversight. It should take no longer than 25 days for a simple complaint and no more than 65 days if the complaint is more complex. If the complaint unavoidably goes over these deadlines, the Council should seek agreement from the complainant.
71. The Council took 220 days. The guidance for local authorities on complaint handling “Getting the Best from Complaints”, (the Guidance) says it is ‘essential’ that the conclusion of the stage two investigation is not delayed so that progression to stage three can happen smoothly. This is fault.
72. Following the stage two report, a senior manager should act as an Adjudicating Officer and consider the complaints, findings, conclusions and recommendations. The officer should prepare a report, with his decision on the complaint, the actions that will be taken and the timescales for adjudication. The response must contain details of the complainant’s right to have the complaint submitted to a Review Panel if he is dissatisfied.
73. There is no timeline for this to be produced but in this case, but it took the Council 128 working days to send the Adjudicator’s letter. The letter informed Mr X he could take the complaint to stage three.
74. The Council has not given adequate reasons to explain this delay. It has offered a payment of £300. It is not clear what part of the delay in this case that this payment addresses. But I consider this is an appropriate remedy for the significant delay in the case.

Failure to progress the complaint to stage three

75. The Adjudicator’s letter informed Mr X that he could progress his complaint to stage three. However, when he tried to do so, he was told he could not. He was referred to the Ombudsman.
76. The Council said that the underlying issue in Mr X’s complaint was rent arrears. It said this had been dealt with at court, when the Council obtained judgment against Mr X, for rent arrears and costs, on 26 November 2018.
77. The Council points to The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006. It lists a number of examples where Councils should not consider complaints. One of these, which the Council says is relevant in this case, is where, “the complainant has stated in writing to the local authority that he is taking, or intends to take, proceedings in any court or tribunal and the local authority decide that consideration, or further consideration, of the representations…would prejudice the conduct of any proceedings…”
78. The Regulations also go on to say that where proceedings have been discontinued or completed, the complainant may resubmit their representations to the Council and the Council shall consider them.
79. The Council says that the court hearing “…became Mr X’s appeal process over our administrative complaints procedure.”
80. It said Mr X had had the opportunity to present his case at the hearing or to make representations to the court.

My analysis

81. I have seen a copy of the attendance note made by the agent who attended court on behalf of the Council. She informed the court that the order was sought because Mr X had vacated the property on 7 October 2018. The proceedings were issued on 26 October 2018; therefore, Mr X was not given notice of the hearing. If the Council intended that the hearing should act as an appeal hearing for consideration of Mr X’s arrears and the other issues he raised, it should have notified him of the proceedings. It was aware he was not living at the property and served him there. This is fault. The Ombudsman cannot comment on anything that happened at court but Mr X is now faced with a costs bill for a hearing he was not informed about.
82. Secondly, the Council is wrong to say the underlying issue to be examined in Mr X’s complaint was rent arrears. The rent arrears were, Mr X claimed, because of the lack of support Mr X received and the mistakes made by the Council in relation to his finances. At heart, his complaint was about service failure. The Council should have considered this further at stage three. This is fault.
83. Finally, the Council’s argument that progressing the complaint to stage three could prejudice the conduct of proceedings is wrong. Judgment had already been granted for the Council. In any event, the part of the regulations the Council relied on clearly refers to future proceedings, not past. The regulations are clear that if the proceedings that prevented the Council looking at a complaint had concluded, which they had, the Council could look at the complaint. The Council’s reasons for not allowing Mr X’s complaint to progress to a stage three panel are misguided in all regards.
84. Mr Y asked the Council to reconsider its decision and it refused. When the complaint came to the Ombudsman, we queried the Council’s decision. When we made enquiries about the logic of the Council’s decision, the Council stood by its decision.
85. This approach caused Mr X a serious injustice. He says he felt like he had been denied a voice and treated unfairly. I consider the Council’s unwillingness to consider his case in the way it should have done, after a history of significant delay, would have caused him significant distress. I bear in mind that Mr X gave the Council the opportunity to reconsider its decision. I also bear in mind that the Council is Mr X’s corporate parent and that it claimed to have dealt with his complaint through a court hearing that Mr X had no notice of and no opportunity to attend. I expect this approach added to his frustration and distress. I have made a recommendation that the Council acknowledge this injustice by making Mr X a payment.

Payment to Mr X

86. The Investigator said that all financial support for Mr X should be paid into his bank account only and that no money should be paid into the bank account of any third party.
87. Mr Y says it was therefore wrong of the Council to use the money it offered Mr X in recognition of delay and service failure, the sum of £450, to offset his outstanding rent arrears.
88. The Council says it follows Ombudsman guidance in this regard. Our guidance says that we will always consider contextual circumstances such as offsetting against any debt owed to a Council.
89. The investigator’s comments were about payments of support to Mr X. They did not specifically refer to payments that might be made by way of acknowledgement of distress or delay. However, it is clear that Mr X is a vulnerable young man and that any payments would represent a form of support for him.
90. The Ombudsman says it will consider contextual circumstances. This involves assessing the circumstances of each case.
91. In this case, given that the investigator had partially upheld Mr X’s complaint that it had not had proper authorisation to use Mr X’s grant money in the way it did, it is surprising that the Council chose to apply the money it offered for service failure and the way it had dealt with Mr X’s complaint, towards his arrears. I have made a recommendation that I consider addresses this issue, bearing in mind the context of this case.
92. The investigator said she did not recommend that Mr X should be offered help with his budget planning because he had already been offered help and had not engaged. I have recommended that the Council offer this help again. If Mr X is happy to engage, he can reach a reasonable arrangement with the Council to reduce his arrears, rather than the Council using the money I have recommended should be paid, to Mr X to reduce his arrears. If Mr X refuses to engage over a period of three months, the Council may meet the recommendations by using it to address Mr X’s arrears. I consider this is a fair approach and is done in the spirit of resolution.

Recommended/ agreed action

93. Within one month of my final decision, the Council should:
1. Pay Mr X the sum of £200 to acknowledge the failure of service occasioned by the Council’s failure to support Mr X from the outset of his appeal for support when he decided to go back to embark on training and for its failure to effectively pathway plan for Mr X;
2. Re-consider Mr X’s request for a new personal advisor.
3. Apologise to Mr X for failing to secure his written agreement before using his grant money to pay his rent arrears.
4. Reconsider the Council’s decision to label Mr X ‘intentionally homeless’. If the Council says it is appropriate to retain this decision, it should provide a statement to Mr X and to the Ombudsman, explaining the consideration given to Mr X’s case and the fault found in this investigation, when reaching that conclusion.
5. Pay Mr X the sum of £300 to acknowledge the distress caused by the delay in dealing with Mr X’s case and complaint, across all areas of the complaint, including the significant delay addressing both his stage one and stage two complaint.
6. Pay Mr X the sum of £500 to acknowledge the distress caused by its failure to progress his complaint to stage three of the complaints process and for the time and trouble Mr X had to take to pursue his complaint to the Ombudsman.
7. Mr X should be given another opportunity to meet with officers and plan his budget. (Mr X should have the opportunity to either invite an independent debt advisor to any budget planning meeting or to seek advice from an independent debt advisor before agreeing on any budget plan.) If he accepts the Council’s invitation to budget plan, the Council will pay the above recommended sums to Mr X directly. If Mr X does not engage with the Council, the Council should use the recommended sums to offset Mr X’s arrears.
94. Within two months of my final decision, the Council should:
1. Consider training to ensure that officers who work with care - leavers who are embarking on a programme of education and/training, undertake effective pathway planning and support at the early stages.
2. Complete an audit of cases where the Council has refused to progress cases to stage three, covering the period of January 2019 to January 2020. It should review those decisions. If it considers, in the light of the findings made in this decision, that it has made other errors, it should write to those affected, informing it of the Ombudsman’s findings and offering a suitable remedy for any misdirection. It should ensure that the complainant was directed to the Ombudsman in all cases.
95. The Council should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with all of the above recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

96. I have found the Council at fault and made recommendations to address that fault. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman